Interview with Douglas Kellner

Questions from "Cadernos de Filosofia ContemporÉnea"

1. In your opinion what are the great topical philosophical
questions at the present time?

DK: The questions of modernity and postmodernity are among the
most important theoretical and political debates of our time. The
concept of the postmodern points to decisive breaks within the
regions of history and society (modernity/postmodernity), the arts
(modernism/postmodernism), and thought (modern/postmodern theory).
Articulating these oppositions is a major concern of contemporary
thought that in turn attempts to articulate what is new and
original about our contemporary moment.

The question of the postmodern has motivated my books on
Baudrillard and Jameson (both 1989) and my work with Steven Best.
Our Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations (1991) sets out the
major differences between modern and postmodern theory and the
specific contributions of Foucault, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Deleuze
and Guattari, Jameson, and postmodern feminist theory, as well as
similarities and differences from the Frankfurt School. In The
Postmodern Turn (1997), we articulate the paradigm shifts in
theory, culture, science, and politics. We argue that the debates
over the postmodern are more complex than in some presentations
(onesidely pro or con), and that the polemics have obscured the
great variety and diversity of postmodern positions, some of which
we reject and some of which we affirm.

In particular, we would reject an extreme postmodernism that
either claims that modernity is over, that postmodernism in the
arts is exhausted, that modern theory and politics are obsolete,
and that we need a dramatically new form of thought and practice.
We argue, rather, that we are between the modern and the postmodern
and that thus syntheses of modern and postmodern thought help
illuminate the present situation. In this way, we try to avoid one-
sided positions and to take the debate to a higher level.

2. What is your opinion about the debate on modernity and
post-modernity? As regards this debate would you emphasize
Lyotard as an important philosopher? If so, please specify
why.

DK: Lyotard decisively shaped and publicized the issue of the
postmodern through publication of his book La Condition postmodern:
rapport sur la savior which appeared in France in 1979 and with an
influential introduction by Jameson in an English translation in
1984. Lyotard pointed to a new mentalite, a new Zeitgeist, a new
distrust against grand narratives and totalizing thought,
accompanied by a quest for new modes of thought and practice. The
text represented a decisive break with his earlier Marxism
(although Marxian motifs arguably remained in his work) and
strongly influenced development of postmodern positions in theory
and politics that broke with modern positions -- theoretical
perspectives which Lyotard continued to develop in his later work.

There is, however, an aporia between Lyotard's attack on
"grand narratives" and "totalizing" theory and claims that we have
entered a "postmodern condition" which I do not think that Lyotard
has ever resolved. While in later writings he makes more modest
claims for the postmodern (it is a "mood," an attitude, and not an
entirely new era in history as Baudrillard and others would have
it), he continues to exploit the term in a way that suggests that
something significant and new is signified by the term -- which, to
me, requires something like a grand narrative or articulated theory
to clarify and legitimate.

Yet Lyotard's significance as a philosopher is certainly not
limited to his popularization of the problematic of the postmodern.
He has many provocative positions in theory, aesthetics, and
politics and his philosophical itinerary is a complex one that has
not been properly explored -- a task for the new generation!

3. What is Marcuse's legacy regarding questions brought about
by our times?

DK: In my book Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism (1984) I
delineated the broad outlines of Marcuse's thought and legacy and
more recently have argued that Marcuse's mode of theorizing major
historical shifts and ruptures provides the modes of thought
necessary to articulate the great transformation of our times (see
Technology, War, and Fascism, 1998; Portuguese translation,
Technologia, Guerra e Fascismo, 1999; Sao Paolo, Brazil: UNESP). In
particular, the transformation associated with globalization, new
technologies, novel forms of war and politics, and emergent modes
of culture and identity require the sort of grand theorizing
associated with Marcuse (which constitutes a counterpole, if you
wish, to Lyotard's Postmodern Condition). Marcuse was especially
good at theorizing the connection between the economy, technology,
society, and culture, thus avoiding one-sided positions. His
dialectical thought avoids technological or economic determinism,
as well as, any modes of reduction by analyzing the interaction
between different modes of economic, political, social, and
cultural life.

Moreover, Marcuse provides a critical imagination and spirit
necessary to see what is wrong with the current organization of
society and to envisage alternatives. Although much of the
controversy around Marcuse in the 1960s and '70s involved his
critiques of contemporary capitalist societies and defense of
revolutionary social change, in retrospect, Marcuse left behind a
complex and many-sided body of work comparable to the legacies of
Ernst Bloch, Georg Lukacs, T.W. Adorno, and Walter Benjamin. His
social theory is characterized by broad critical perspectives that
attempt to capture the major socio-historical, political and
cultural features of the day. Such attempts to get at the Big
Picture, to theorize the fundamental changes, developments,
contradictions, and struggles of the day are more necessary than
ever in an era of globalization in which the restructuring of
capital and technological revolution are changing all aspects of
life. Marcuse's thought thus continues to be relevant because he
provides a mode of global theoretical analysis and addresses issues
that continue to be of relevance to contemporary theory and
politics -- such as subjectivity, culture, technology, ecology,
social transformation, and so on. His unpublished manuscripts
contain much material pertinent to contemporary concerns which
could provide the basis for a rebirth of interest in Marcuse's
thought.

Further, Marcuse provides comprehensive philosophical
perspectives on domination and liberation, a powerful method and
framework for critically analyzing contemporary society, and a
vision of liberation that is richer than classical Marxism, other
versions of Critical Theory, and current versions of postmodern
theory. Indeed, Marcuse presents critical philosophical
perspectives on human beings and their relationship to nature and
society, as well as substantive social theory and radical politics.
In retrospect, Marcuse's vision of liberation -- of the full
development of the individual in a non-repressive society --
distinguishes his work, along with sharp critique of existing forms
of domination and oppression, and he emerges in this narrative as
a theorist of forces of domination and liberation. Deeply rooted in
philosophy and the conception of social theory developed by the
Institute for Social Research, Marcuse's work lacked the sustained
empirical analysis in some versions of Marxist theory and the
detailed conceptual analysis found in many versions of political
theory. Yet he constantly showed how science, technology, and
theory itself had a political dimension and produced a solid body
of ideological and political analysis of many of the dominant forms
of society, culture, and thought during the turbulent era in which
he lived and struggled for a better world.

Thus, I believe that Marcuse overcomes the limitations of many
current varieties of philosophy and social theory and that his
writings provide a viable starting-point for theoretical and
political concerns of the present age. In particular, his
articulations of philosophy with social theory, cultural criticism,
and radical politics constitute an enduring legacy. While
mainstream academic divisions of labor isolate social theory from
philosophy and other disciplines, Marcuse provides a robust
philosophical dimension and cultural criticism to social theory,
while develop his theoretical perspectives in interaction with
concrete analyses of society, politics, and culture in the present
age. This dialectical approach thus assigns philosophy an important
role within social theory, providing critical theory with strong
normative and philosophical perspectives.

4. It seems that your theoretical positions follow the steps
of the Frankfurt School. Is there any difference between your
position and that of the classical theoreticians of the
Critical Theory?

DK: I do associate my work with the Frankfurt School and just as
they appropriated what they saw as the most progressive or advanced
modes of contemporary thought into their social theory of the
contemporary age (i.e. Nietzsche, Freud, Weber, etc), so too do I
believe that critical theory today needs to engage the most
advanced forms of postmodern, feminist, multicultural, and other
new forms of theory in order to illuminate the present age and
provide models of personal and societal transformation.
Unfortunately, many contemporary followers of the Frankfurt School
have maintained a rather dogmatic position in regard to postmodern
and other new forms of theory that is polemical and rejective
rather dialectical and appropriative.

However, in regard to Frankfurt School theory I do not
maintain a strict orthodoxy or follow the line and letter of
specific theorists like Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, Habermas, or other
major theorists in the tradition. I believe that all the critical
theorists contain valuable contributions to critical social theory
and radical democratic politics today and that to be an orthodox,
say, solely Habermasian or Marcusian, would be against the spirit
of critical theory that is precisely a critique of theory and
society!

In addition, many central positions of the classical Frankfurt
School need to be revised. While the Frankfurt School is
historically important for theorizing the new forms of economy,
politics, culture, technology, and subjectivity in the transition
from market capitalism of the 19th century to the new forms of
state and monopoly capitalism which they theorized from the 1920s
until their respective deaths, today there are new forms of
economy, politics, technology, culture and so on that require new
theoretical analyses. I would go so far as to maintain that the
restructuring of capitalism described by the code words of
"globalization" or "technological revolution" is as vast and
momentous as the changes to the stage of state and monopoly
capitalism, the culture industries, and the administered society
described by the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and the 1940s. Such
transformations require new forms of thought and the development of
critical theory in the contemporary moment. The categories of
critical theory are dialectical and historical and require revision
and development. Hence, a dogmatic critical theory is a
contradiction in terms, although dogmatism certainly infects
current followers of the Frankfurt School -- a dogmatism I would
try to avoid in principle.

5. In your opinion, what are the links between modernity (or
post-modernity), ethics and political philosophy?

DK: One of the distinctive features of the debates between modern
and postmodern theory is the contrasting views between modern and
postmodern ethics and politics (although there are passionate
debates over what constitutes postmodern ethics and politics, just
as there have been significant polemics over modern ethics and
politics!). I have already written enough for one questionnaire, so
for my views on postmodern ethics and politics I would refer the
read to Chapter Five of my book with Steven Best The Postmodern
Turn, or later developments of our ideas in "Postmodern Politics
and the Battle for the Future" (New Political Science, Vol. 20, Nr.
3 [1998]: 283-299) and "La politica postmoderna la batallia por el
futuro" (Revista de Ciencias Sociales [1998]: 5-29).

****
Austin, Texas
October 5, 1999

Douglas Kellner is George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of
Education at UCLA and is author of many books on social theory,
politics, history, and culture, including Camera Politica: The
Politics and Ideology of Contemporary Hollywood Film, co-authored
with Michael Ryan, Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity, Jean
Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond, Postmodern
Theory: Critical Interrogations (with Steven Best), Television and
the Crisis of Democracy, The Persian Gulf TV War, Media Culture,
and The Postmodern Turn (with Steven Best). He can be reached by
email at kellner@ucla.edu